LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



019 566 671 4% 



BX 5995 
.P3 H3 
I Copy 1 




^ ISitm Bi5\i)op anh a Kero ^m in 
t\)t Moct&t of JHarglan^. 



A SERMON 



PREACHED 



In St. John's Church, Howard County, Maryland, 
ON NoY. 2, 1884, 

Being the Sunday following the Election to 
the Episcopate of Maryland of 

THE REV. WILLIAM PARET, D. D. 



WITH A PREFACE ON RECENT CHURCH CONTROVERSIES. 

BY '' 

THE REV. HALL HARRISON, M. A. 



New York: Baltimore: 

T. WHITTAKBR, Publisher, GEORGE LYCETT, 

2 and 3 Bible House. 40 Lexington St. 

1884. 
Price Ten Gents. 



'A 



PRESS OF ISAAC FRIEDENWALD, 
BALTIMORE, MD. 






TO 

THE REV. WILLIAM KIRKUS, M. A., LL.B. 

EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN LITERARY CHURCHMAN, 

WHOSE VIGOROUS AND FEARLESS PEN 

HELPED US TO RECOVER FOR OUR DIOCESE 

THE SUPREMACY OF LAW AND FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION, 

THIS SERMON 

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED 
WITH SENTIMENTS OF AFFECTIONATE REGARD. 



FROM MR. GLADSTONE'S CELEBRATED ESSAY, 
^'THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
AND RITUALISM." 

** Ritualism surely means an undue disposition to ritual. 
Ritual itself is founded on the Apostolic precept, ' Let all 
things be done decently and in order,' . . . [According to 
a use of the term which in practice is more widely prevalent 
than any other.] Ritualism is to each man that which, in 
matter of ritual, each man dislikes, and holds to be in excess. 
When the term is thus used it becomes in the highest degree 
deceptive ; for it covers, under an apparent unity, meanings 
as many as the ripples of the smiling sea ; as the shades of 
antagonism to, or divergence from, the most overloaded 
Roman ceremonial. When the term is thus employed^ sym- 
pathy flies, as if it were electricity, through the crowd ; but 
it is sympathy based upon the sound and not upon the sense. 
Men thus impelled, mischievously, but naturally, mistake the 
strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. 
The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless 
scrutiny of logic. . . 

*' Ritual, then, is the clothing which, in some form 

AND IN some degree, MEN NATURALLY AND INEVITABLY GIVE 
TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PUBLIC DUTIES OF RELIGION." . . . 

[After some valuable remarks on the adaptation of the out- 
ward to the inward, on bad architecture, on aesthetics, and 
on the visible improvement in the public taste, Mr. Gladstone 
thus proceeds :] 

** What is Ritualism ? It is unwise, undisciplined reaction 
from poverty, from coldness, from barrenness, from naked- 
ness ; it is overlaying purpose with adventitious and obstruc- 
tive incumbrance ; it is departure from measure and from 



yi 



harmony in the annexation of appearance to substance, of 
the outward to the inward ; it is the caricature of the 
beautiful ; it is the conversion of helps into hindrances ; it 
is the attempted substitution of the secondary for the primary 
aim, and the real failure and paralysis of both. A great 
deal of our architecture, a great share of our industrial pro- 
duction, has been or is, it may be feared, very ritualistic 
indeed. ... 

** It must be admitted that the state of things, from which 
the thing popularly known as ritualism took historically its 
point of departure, was dishonoring to Christianity, disgrace- 
ful to the nation, disgraceful most of all to that much vaunted 
religious sentiment of the English public, which in impene- 
trable somnolence endured it and resented all interference 
with it. Nakedness enough there was, fifty and forty years 
ago, of divine service and of religious edifices among the 
Presbyterians of Scotland and among the Nonconformists of 
England. But, among these, the outward fault was to a 
great extent redeemed by the cardinal virtues of earnestness 
and fervour. The prayer of the minister was at least listened 
to with a pious attention, and the noblest of all the sounds 
that can reach the human ear was usually heard in the mas- 
sive swell and solemn fall of the united voices of the congre- 
gations. 

** But within the ordinary English Parish Church of town 
or country, [and the remark applies also to America, with 
certain obvious qualifications] there was no such redeeming 
feature in the action of the living, though the inanimate 
treasure of the Prayer Book yet remained. Its warmth was 
stored, like the material of fire in our coal seams, for better 
days. It was stiU the surviving bed or mould in which 
higher forms of religious thought and feeling were some day 
to be cast. But the actual state of things, as to worship, was 
bad beyond all parallel known to me in experience or reading. 
Taking together the expulsion of the poor and laboring 
classes (especially from the town churches), the mutilations 
and blockages of the fabrics, the baldness of the service, the 



YII 



elaborate horrors of the so-called music, with the jargon of 
parts contrived to exhibit the powers of every village roarer, 
and to prevent all congregational singing, and above all, the 
coldness and indifference of the lounging or sleeping congre- 
gations, our services were probably without a parallel in the 
world for their debasement. As they would have shocked a 
Brahmin or a Buddhist, so they hardly could have been 
endured in this country had not the faculty of taste and the 
perception of the seemly or unseemly been as dead as the 
spirit of devotion." — Griadstone's Gleanings of Past Years, 
vol. YI, pp. 109, etc. 



CONTENTS OF THE PREFACE. 

PAGE 

1. Peculiar importance of Dr. Paret's election, . ix 

2. Origin of the late controversies, ... ix 

Note. — Maya ''Standing Committee" be criti- 
cized ? 

3. Statement of the question at issue, ... xii 

4. Position of the Bishop-elect on that question. His 

Letter to Dr. Grammer, . . . xiii 

{a) Bitterness of party-spirit in Maryland, xiv 

(&) What are the rights of a parish and rector ? xiv 

(c) Discourtesy and usurpation of the Standing 

Pommittee, xv 

[d) Fair dealing demanded. Dr. Paret no 

''Ritualist," xv 

5. Justice and generosity of this Letter, . . xv 

6. The Standing Committee compelled to give way, xvi 

7. Conversion of Dr, Lewin, xvi 

8. What is the net result ? xvi 

9. Ritualism not swept away, .... xvi 

10. The " symbolic dolphins " at Emmanuel, . xvii 

11. Drs. Paret and Hodges kept out of the Standing 

Committee and General Convention, . . xviii 

12. Charge of the Bishop of London. " Be at peace, ' ' xix-xxii 



PKEFACE. 

1. The election of the Eev. Dk. Paret to the 
Episcopate of Maryland is, from every point of view, 
an event of no little importance. It gives promise 
that we have at length seen the end of the late 
unhappy and discouraging condition of affairs, 
which has excited the amazement and regret of 
more peaceful Dioceses. In some of these there has 
been ritual far more extravagant and striking than 
has ever been known in Baltimore, but it has ex- 
cited no panic or alarm that has not speedily sub- 
sided. 

The time seems to have come for a calm review 
of the past and a summing up of results. Every 
Diocese is interested in this question. 

2. The lamentable state of things to which I 
refer grew out of a now admitted misconstruction, 
on the part of our Standing Committee,* of the 

* In 1879 the Standing Committee of Maryland was com- 
posed as follows : The Eev. S. R. Gordon, D. D., President ; 
the Rev. A. P. Stryker, Secretary ; the Rev. John H. Chew, 
and the Rev. Drs. Leeds, Lewin, Elliott, and Hoff. When 
Dr. Hoff died the Committee filled the vacancy (notwith- 
standing a strong and indignant protest from the American 
Literary Churchman) by electing the Rev. A. M. Ran- 
dolph, D. D., of Emmanuel Church. When this gentleman 
was chosen Assistant Bishop of Virginia, the Rev. Dr. 
Hutton, one of our oldest and most trusted presbyters, was 



X 

Canons on Ordination. Their view has been proved 
to be bad law — never before heard of; and such as 
it was, it was applied with an injustice and dis- 
courtesy which it would be painful to recall with 
any farther particularity. I allude of course to the 
cases of Messrs. W. D. Martin and H. 0. Bishop, 
and to the correspondence that was published. In 

put, by the Committee, in his place, and when the lamented 
Dr. Gordon died in 1883, Dr. W. W. Williams, a conserva- 
tive churchman, who is no partisan, was chosen to succeed 
him. The Committee, as thus re-constituted, was re-elected 
in 1884 with scarcely any opposition. The criticisms which 
follow in these pages apply, of course, exclusively to the old 
Standing Committee of 1879, 1880, 1881 and 1882, and only 
to the majority of that Committee. There was always a 
minority of one, two, or three that counselled, ineffectually, 
the things that made for peace. Owing, however, to the 
miserable system of secrecy regarding the affairs of the Com- 
mittee (and that only half maintained), it was impossible 
to say with absolute certainty who the minority were. That 
there was always an opposing minority on these troublesome 
questions, the Rev. Mr. Chew stated in open Convention in 
1882. 

And here it may, perhaps, be well to add a word about the 
right and propriety of criticizing such a body as the ^* Stand- 
ing Committee." It was actually maintained here in Mary- 
land, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and eighty-one, that the Standing Committee being a sort 
of * ' ecclesiastical authority, ' ' was above criticism ; that 
their persons were sacred ; such a divinity did hedge them 
round that, as in the case of royalty, 'twas treason to 
question the legality or propriety of their acts — you could 
turn them out of oflBlce, but you must never dare to say 
why you wish to do it, etc. ! This is such sheer nonsense as 
hardly needs serious refutation. The Standing Committee by 



XI 



Mr. W. E. Webb's case the letter of the law was 
indeed observed, but his examiners (two of whom, 
with questionable propriety, were also members 
of the Standing Committee, and therefore sat on 
the poor young man tioice) treated him with need- 
less severity, and, I regret to add, an apparent spirit 

no means occupy the position of a Bishop (and even a Bishop 
is subject to impeachment and trial, as the Rev. Dr. Ran- 
dolph took pains in 1875 to keep us Marylanders from forget- 
ting). The members of the Standing Committee are elected 
annually by the Convention. They are essentially a com- 
mittee — the *^ Executive Committee" — of the Diocese, the 
servants of the Convention ; and like other servants, even in 
these degenerate days, are liable to be dismissed if they are 
not ** satisfactory." They are appointed to do certain duties 
which are carefully laid down by law, and they are answer- 
able to public opinion and to the Convention. If they 
neglect their duties, if they violate the law, if they strain 
and stretch it, tf they show favoritism, or are discourteous 
and unwise, it is not only a right, but a duty, to call them to 
account, both in and out of Convention, and to endeavor to 
awaken a public opinion which will either cause them to 
behave, or else replace them with better and wiser men. 
(This duty the American Literary Churchman undertook, 
and very successfully performed.) In short, while the 
Bishop may be likened to the King, and should be treated 
with a sort of loyal allegiance and deference — even his mis- 
takes handled as tenderly as possible ; the Standing Com- 
mittee may be compared to the ^* Ministry," for the time 
being, in the English Constitution. Like the ministry, its 
members are subject to the honest criticism and judgment of 
those who made, and can, if they see fit to do so, also 
unmake them. In Church matters, as in pohtics, free dis- 
cussion is indispensable, and it is never feared except by 
those whose deeds will not bear exposure to the light of day. 



XII 



of evasion and unfairness, as the printed corres- 
pondence too plainly showed.* So utterly frivolous 
were the Maryland objections deemed, when in- 
vestigated, that Bishop Neely ordained Mr. Martin, 
Bishop Doane ordained Mr. Bishop, and Bishop 
Henry Potter ordained Mr. Webb. The deliberate 
judgments of these Bishops and their Standing 
Committees will probably carry as much weight 
with the Church at large as the judgment of Dr. 
Lewin and the three or four gentlemen of the Mary- 
land Committee who joined him on this issue. 

3. It may be well- to re-state the question in 
debate, and the attitude of the Committee. 

Ever since Standing Committees have existed, the 
following has been the unvarying custom in the 
Church, down to the cases of Messrs. Martin and 
Bishop. When testimonials duly signed by a Eector 
and Vestry " in good standing " are presented, the 
Standing Committee accept the candidate, as a 

* The Editor of the American Literary Churchman, who 
so mercilessly exposed all these doings and helped to bring 
about the ''new era," appended the following brief remarks 
to the letters as published in his paper : 

'* We commend this correspondence to intelligent laymen. 
Will they ask themselves how far they would have been 
satisfied with this kind of treatment if their own sons had 
been subjected to it?" These batches of correspondence, 
quite unique in their way, set people to iM7ikmg. A laughable 
climax of absurdity, moreover, was reached when a corres- 
pondent in the American Literary Churchman proved from 
Bishop Whittingham's published writings that that prelate 
could not have passed a satisfactory examination in divinity 
before Dr. Lewin and his associates ! Of course, then, Mr, 
Webb could not. 



XIII 

matter of course^ unless they Tcnow, either person- 
ally or from satisfactory evidence, that he is unfit — 
"know him to be a bad man" — as our great 
canonist Dr. Hawks expresses it.* In such a case 
it would be manifest that the Kector and Vestry 
had been imposed upon, and it would be the duty of 
the Committee to reject. It was never heard of 
until Mr. Martin's case, that a Standing Committee 
could reject a man whom they knew and admitted to 
be fit and good, and prevent him even from beginning 
his theological studies, because they disapproved the 
opinions, or " church manship," of the Rector who 
signed his papers. Yet this was what the Mary- 
land Committee claimed and did. 

Under these canons High Church Committees 
have always received candidates from Low Church 
congregations, and vice versa, Nor is there the least 
danger of the Church sufi'ering, because the same 
canons provide that the acquirements and ortho- 
doxy of the candidate shall be determined after 
searching examinations^ not iy the Standing Com- 
mittee, iut hy the Examining Chaplains and Bishop. 
The Committee's functions are entirely distinct.! 

4. The position taken on this important and 

* Hawks on ** Constitution and Canons," p. 192, Edit. 
1841. 

tThe Maryland Committee is a witness against itself. 
That same committee had received the testimonials of H. 
Chew Bishop as "satisfactory" in 1878, though they must 
have been signed by those same clergy who were even then 
'* under the ban," as the Baltimore American very properly 
termed it. Vide Journal of Maryland Convention for 1879. 



XIY 

critical question by the Bishop-elect (who was 
never classed as a " Kitualist ")^ and of others who 
resisted the encroachments of the Committee and 
their disconrteons and unwise methods, was forcibly 
expressed at the time in his letter to the Eev. Julius 
E. G-rammer, D.D.* A few extracts from this 
important and able document will be read with 
interest, both in and out of the Diocese, and they 
will be found fully to justify the ground taken in 
the sermon which follows : 

(a) My Dear Doctor : — I am much obliged by your 
frank letter. It was a sense of deep discouragement that 
sent me on my poor effort to help for peace. And I confess 
I am more disheartened every day. It seems to me that in 
this Diocese the separation of parties is more marked, more 
bitter, and more persistent, than I have ever known it else- 
where. How our mission work, or any joint work, can thrive, 
or how there can be any sincerity and reality in the talk 
about unity, I cannot understand. [All this was perfectly 
true of the Diocese in those sad days ; now, happily, much 
changed.] You ask my further opinion upon certain points. 
(&) . . . . grantmg the right of the Standing Com- 
mittee to refuse, you ask, What are the rights of the parish 
and rector testifying, and of the applicant ? My answer is, 
first, as already suggested, courteous treatment ; and, 
second, a right to equal standing with others as qualified to 
testify, until, by compete7it authority, it has been decided 
otherwise. . . . [Dr. Paret then explains what he means 
by competent authority. He calls attention to the Canon on 
Ritual and the provision made for trying clergymen accused 
of violating it. After showing that no steps had been taken 
to try the Mount Calvary clergy or Dr. Hodges, Dr. Paret thus 
continues :] Now no right is more sacred, nor more care- 
fully assured, than the right of fair hearing before judgment. 

*See Baltimore Church News of June 17th, 1880. 



XY 



Bur, in this instance, every proyision, so carefully made, for 
fair hearing to those accused, is annulled by the Standing 
Committee. 

(c) They have usurped a power of judgment and condem- 
nation, without a hearing, without the investigation which 
the canon commands. On rumor, and ex parte statements, 
virtually refusing all opportunity to be heard, they have 
adjudged a certain parish and its rector so disloyal to the 
Church, that its testimonials are not to be received as suf- 
ficient. And when the parish and rector repeatedly ask 
reasons, they are repeatedly put off with discourtesy and 
snubbed. . . . 

{d) I plead only for fair dealing, and an equal appli- 
cation of the law. You well know that I neither practice nor 
approve the things forbidden in the Canon referred to. In 
all matters of ritual and doctrine I am a plain old-fashioned 
churchman. But I am plain and old-fashioned also in my 
ideas of justice and fair treatment ; and I do not think 
error will ever he corrected by oppression,'^ 

5. I should like to quote still further from this 
admirable letter, but this is enough to show its 

* I may here mention an anecdote told me during the late 
Convention by one of the clergy of the City of Washington. 
My informant was conversing about Maryland, this past 
summer, with a Bishop whose name I do not feel at liberty to 
mention, but who would certainly be regarded as a prominent 
— possibly the most prominent — leader of the Evangelical 
School. *^ They will hardly elect Dr. Paret in Maryland," 
said the Bishop, '*he's a Ritualist, isn't he?" My friend 
informed the Bishop of Dr. Paret 's real position on this 
Maryland question. The good Bishop was much surprised. 
*^ So that's what they mean in Maryland by being a Ritualist ! 
Then I am a Ritualist. Dr. Paret could not properly have 
acted otherwise, and if I had been in Maryland I should 
have stood side by side with him on that question.^' 



XYI 



drift. And I am sure that clergy and laity will 
thank me for .bringing once more before them, from 
the files of an old forgotten newspaper, this fine 
and fearless utterance — so just and so generous — 
which is, moreover, characteristic of the man who is 
so soon, as our Bishop and Father in God, to be 
entrusted with the administration of our tangled 
ecclesiastical afi'airs. 

6. For, after all this futile contention and dis- 
turbance, it is the author of the above forcible letter, 
it is this sturdy antagonist of the persecuting policy, 
it is this man who worked for justice and for 
peace, who has been — all but unanimously — elected 
Bishop of Maryland, to occupy the honoured 
seat of Pinkney and of Whittingham. 

7. And I am happy to be able to add (as indeed 
it is only just to do) that the conversion of the 
President of the Standing Committee appears to be 
absolute and entire ; he is now a warm supporter of 
the Bishop-elect, and was one of the committee of 
twelve who unanimously proposed his name to the 
late Convention. 

8. What, then, is the net result of all that has been 
going on since Bishop Whittingham^s death, and 
especially of the line adopted by the Standing Com- 
mittee on these questions? Either the Standing 
Committee have changed their opinions (which would 
be very creditable to them), or, they have perceived 
that the Diocese of Maryland will put up with these 
doings no longer and have wisely retraced their steps. 

9. But (to turn to the question which is at the 
bottom) has " Eitualism " been put down or swept 



XYII 

away ? Not at all. x\s far as I can see, it is rather 
spreading, and it is stronger than ever. Why, the 
Protestant bodies outside of our Church are becom- 
ing "ritualistic," in the proper sense of the term, 
that is, in attending to external ceremonial and 
aesthetics. Look, for example, at the style of their 
ecclesiastical architecture. But if you include in 
the term matters of doctrine, then read the remark- 
able quotation from Prof. Newman Smyth on page 
11 of this pamphlet. 

10. Turning to our own churches, I really can see 
no sign of ritualism diminishing. Take the large 
and influential congregation whose late rector was 
so notorious an opponent of Mount Calvary, and 
whose "zeal, not according to knowledge," aided 
by the Eev. Dr. Lewin, has turned our Diocese 
upside down for the past ten years. Take Em- 
manuel. It has recently, at great cost, been splen- 
didly decorated and embellished. Yes; that very 
congregation which so seriously objected to the 
symbolism at Mount Calvary, now conducts its 
worship surrounded by some one hundred symbolic 
dolphins, elaborately painted on the walls of their 
church. Nor is this any innovation of the present 
rector; it was done under Dr. Randolph. The 
thoughtful visitor to the church, loTio may happen 
to have a memory, cannot help saying to himself. Is 
symbolism, then, is Ritualism, after all, so very 
wrong and dreadful ? Surely, after these dolphins, 
it will be unreasonable to find fault with Mount 
Calvary for its " two great lights," or even its 
''' seven golden candlesticks." If Emmanuel may 



XYIII 

have so many fishes, Mt. Calyary and St. PauFs 
may have a few little boys in surplices ! 

" But this is not Eitualism ! " Indeed ! We were 
certainly told ten years ago that all this sort of 
thing was Ritualism; nay, five years ago. And 
as one who " sat under " the estimable Henry V. D. 
Johns, I can assure the present generation that 
that worthy divine would have cut off his two 
hands before he would have permitted those dol- 
phins in Emmanuel Church. I hope I shall not 
offend the sensibility of my friends in Emmanuel. 
I mention this only to show how near we are to- 
gether after all, and how faint is the line of separa- 
tion. Not worth fighting about certainly. If High 
and Broad Churchmen are expected to submit to 
ecclesiastical trials, and to be tabooed as far as the 
honors or offices of the Convention are concerned^ 
the Evangelicals, surely, can stand a good-natured 
laugh at their seeming inconsistency. 

Look again at the improved chancel arrangements 
at St. Peter's. Its altar, which (like that of Emma- 
nuel under Dr. Johns) used to be arranged in regular 
meeting-house style, is now placed in the eastward 
position, just like Mount Calvary or Grace. Christ 
Church, too, is as gorgeous as St. Paul's, and much 
more handsomely decorated than Mt. Calvary. 

It is idle, then, to talk of the Standing Com- 
mittee having swept Ritualism away, or done any- 
thing but "lengthen its cords and strengthen its 
stakes." 

11. I see, looking calmly at the whole history, but 
one practical result gained by, what I must take 
leave to call. Dr. Lewin's policy of persecution. Dr. 



XIX 

Paret and Dr. Hodges have been kept out of the 
Standing Committee and General Convention^ and 
Dr. Leeds was deprived, in 1880 (in a very unkind 
and unexpected way), of the seat in the latter body he 
had so long held with honor to the Diocese and with 
usefulness to the Church. But God forbid! that 
any churchman in his sober senses, now that the 
heat has passed away, should calmly think those 
results good, or have any feelings but sorrow and 
regret when he remembers them. 

One other outcome may be hoped for and worked 
for, viz., that we may all see more clearly than ever 
the uselessness, the supreme folly, of persecution 
and oppression. Let us be at peace among our- 
selves. Let us seek to overcome what we deem 
error chiefly by argument and discussion ; rarely by 
"going to law"; and never by the least semblance of 
injustice. Let us do our own work, and in the name 
of God let our brethren do theirs. Let us hope 
that the day has at last arrived when Ephraim will 
not envy Judah, and Emmanuel and St. Barnabas 
will no longer vex Mount Calvary, (And under a 
man like Dr. Eccleston, we all know well that 
Emmanuel will not even wish to do anything of the 
sort.) 

12. I shall conclude with a few passages from the 
recent admirable and touching Charge of the Bishop 
of London.* His great Diocese, even more than our 

* Dr. Jackson. As I write, the mail brings the New York 
Churcliman of December 6. I am delighted to observe that 
the editor was impressed with some of these same passages, 
and that he has spread them before American churchmen in 
his widely circulated journal. 



XX 



own, has been for years and years disturbed by 
attacks on Eitualism, (carried on, however, legally, 
in the courts, and not in the Maryland fashion). 
After this long experience, it is pathetic to read the 
loving words of the venerable Bishop, entreating 
his Low Church brethren to stay their hand, to stop 
going to law, to let him and his Diocese be at peace, 
and allow the real, beneficent work of the Church 
to proceed. 

Bishop Jackson does not like Eitualism, as is well 
known, and as the following quotation shows ; yet 
with rare justice he has given Mr. Mackonochie 
preferment, and he pleads in this earnest strain for 
a cessation of warfare : 

" I am sure that the multiplication of ceremonies 
and the sensuous accessories of worship, though 
attractive to many weaTc minds, and helpful possibly 
to a few, have a tendency to distract rather than to 
concentrate the devotional energies of the mind, to 
hinder the close contact of the praying soul with God, 
and at the same time, ly the pleasurable excitement of 
the senses, to impose a fallacy on the worshipper, and to 
send him away persuaded that he has been devout in 
prayer and praise, while he has only been enjoying 
the beauty of the service.'^ 

* I have put this sentence in italics partly to call special 
attention to it, and also because it exactly expresses my own 
personal feeling (confirmed by long observation) about the 
dangers of extravagant ceremonialism ; it is a line of thought 
which I have continuously maintained since 1865 or 1866, 
which is about the date when the word Ritualism began to be 
known in this country. But I love to think that decent, 



XXI 

" But I believe that the remedy for excesses in 
ritual, as well as for eccentricities of doctrine, is not 
to be sought in measures of repression, or imposition 
of penalties. It is the lesson of all history that 
religious beliefs, be they true or false, and religious 
observances, whether reasonable or superstitious, are 
strengthened by opposition, and are clung to only 
the more fondly if attempted to be repressed by 
force. The cure is rather to be sought in the 
supply of defects from which excesses are often the 
reaction. Cold and dull services, plain rubrics 
habitually neglected, unfrequent communions [poor 
sermons, etc.]. . . — these have to bear much of the 
responsibility of the exaggerations both of ritual 
worship and of sacramental teaching which for a 
quarter of a century have disturbed our peace. . . . 

" In face of such a world as this we cannot aflford 
to have dissension among ourselves. We need 
serried ranks in front of such a foe. And toe 7nay 
well ie content to leave without rebuke ritual lue could 
not use ourselves, and modes of teaching and en- 
forcing God's truth tuhich we do not deem the iest, 
so long as we see them telling effectually on sin and 
unbelief and winning souls into the Church's fold. 
What matters it, if the war is waged successfully, 

reverent, orderly, beautiful services like those in St. Paul's, 
Baltimore, and in many other churches, are more and more 
appreciated and admired by churchmen, and I welcome 
every approach to such a standard in Emmanuel or St. 
Peter's or St. Barnabas's. The old meeting-house style of 
slovenly service will soon be as extinct as the meeting-house 
itself. 



XXII 

that the weapons are not of exactly the same pattern 
or temper as our own ? If unity is strength, who 
need it more than the clergy and Church of such a 
Diocese as ours ? . . . 

" brethren, when the shades of closing life are 
falling, and It is idle to dream of compensating for 
the faults of the past by resolutions for the future, 
the mind is forced back on a retrospect where there 
is mostly a humiliating array of errors and imper- 
fections, opportunities missed, resolves broken, 
mistakes made, useful plans marred in their execu- 
tion, and a stewardship which, if not faithless, is 
yet felt to have greatly failed. In such a retrospect, 
amidst so much to humble and to grieve, it would 
be to me a source of unspeakable comfort if, when 
the burden is to be laid aside and the work is over, 
I might be permitted to believe that at least I had 
left my Diocese in unity and peace/' 



Acts I, 24-26. 

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, ivhich 
Icnoivest the hearts of all men, shoio luhether of these 
two Thou hast chosen, that he may tahepart of this 
ministry and apostleship .... And they gave forth 
their lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he 
was numbered with the eleven Apostles. 

The lessons to be learned from the choice of St. 
Matthias to be an Apostle, which we may call, with 
sufficient historical accuracy, the first election of a 
Bishop in the Church of Christ, are neither few nor 
unimportant; but I shall not now dwell upon them.* 
I had another purpose in selecting my text, and that 
was to say a few words upon a kindred topic, in 
which, as good churchmen, as Christians who love 
the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I will 
venture to add, even as citizens of our State of 
Maryland, all to whom I have the privilege of speak- 
ing, take a deep and solid interest. 

I speak not to gratify mere curiosity ; the news- 
papers and the telegraph have done that. I speak 
to your hearts, because I am sure you have at heart 
the advancement of God's glory, the good of His 

* Some introductory remarks upon the text are here omitted, 
and a few sentences in the body of the discourse have been 
slightly enlarged. 



Church, the safety, honour and welfare of His 
people. 

For the space of sixteen months, since the 
lamented death of Bishop Pinkney, our beloved 
Diocese has been, not absolutely headless indeed? 
for there is always an ecclesiastical authority over 
us, but without a Bishop and Chief Pastor. Our 
Annual Convention was held in May, but eleven 
months of discussion and thought had failed to 
indicate the proper man; and though thirteen 
ballots were taken, still there was no Bishop. Many 
were in despair, and predictions were freely made 
that, under the Constitution of this Diocese, which 
requires a majority of two-thirds of both clergy and 
laity, no choice would be arrived at for years to 
come. 

Chafing under the disappointment, and weary of 
waiting any longer, a certain section of churchmen, 
under the lead of the Rev. Eector of St. Peter's 
Church, Baltimore (Dr. Grammer), thought it best 
to endeavour to change the Constitution, and make 
a bare majority, even of one, sufficient to elect so 
important an officer as a Bishop, who, when chosen, 
must, as in the case of husband and wife, remain, for 
better, for worse, married to his Diocese until death 
severs the connection. The rest of us, supported by 
the Eev. Dr. Paret, of Washington, — who delivered 
a very able argument — strenuously resisted any 
attempt to alter the fundamental law of the Diocese 
pending the election of a Bishop. And this, because at 
such a time we were necessarily restless and not able 
to consider the matter fairly and calmly on its merits. 



As the balloting proceeded, a Bishop was chosen, 
and so the effort to change the Constitution at this 
last Convention was abandoned. The result — the 
happy, the excellent result — you all know. After 
thirty-six tedious ballots a Bishop of Maryland has 
at length been chosen. 

Now whether the mode of election be by an actual 
lot drawn out of an urn, or by counting our votes 
after the best use we can make of our human judg- 
ment, the result in the end is still overruled by the 
great Disposer and Governor of all things. " The 
lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing 
thereof is of the Lord." He it is that causes one 
man to be influenced by this argument or motive, 
and another by that ; suggests this thought to one, 
and that thought to another. " He maketh men to 
be of one mind in an house." The whole issue is in 
His hands, though we. His servants, are still bound 
to use our minds and form an honest judgment. 

Let me tell you an incident of this very election. 
I know a clergyman — not the present speaker, let me 
add — who felt so doubtful whether the presbyter 
who at last was actually chosen was the most suitable 
man for Bishop that he adopted this course : He 
wrote the name of the Eev. Dr. Paret on one ballot, 
and the name of another presbyter whom he himself 
personally preferred on another. He turned these 
over and mixed them up so that he could not tell 
which was which. He breathed a short, silent 
prayer: "Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of 
all men, show whether of these two Tliou hast 
chosen." He then drew by lot one of these names. 



and when his turn came to vote, he advanced and 
dropped the paper in the box without looking to see 
which it was. Eeturning to his seat he looked at 
the other ballot still in his possession and found 
that he had cast his vote for the Eector of Epiphany, 
Washington, who is, God willing, so soon to be our 
Bishop. There were one hundred and twenty-one 
votes in all ; or — may I not say ? — " the number of 
the names together was about one hundred and 
twenty." '' And the lot fell upon Matthias, and he 
was numbered with the eleven Apostles." 

And now, my dear brethren, let me speak of the 
past and present condition of our Diocese, and say a 
respectful word about our new Bishop. I wish to. tell 
you why I think we ought to be unfeignedly thank- 
ful for the result which the Almighty Euler of the 
Church has, at least, permitted us to reach, if I may 
not say, as I believe I might, has directly brought 
about. 

I speak in this strain, not because I have been 
in general accord in matters of churchmanship with 
the Bishop-elect, though this is a fact ; nor yet 
because I, from the first, personally preferred him to 
all others, for this is not the fact. And yet I do feel 
most deeply thankful for the result. 

I went to the Convention desirous to see chosen 
as our new Bishop the well-known Eector of Grace 
Church,* Baltimore (the Eev. Dr. Leeds), whom I, 

*Tlie Eev. Dr. Leeds received a majority of the votes of the 
clergy eight times ; the two-thirds rule of Maryland prevented his 
election. He obtained 75 votes out of 137, and 65 out of 138. The 
Rev. Dr. Hodges received from 43 to 53 votes, considerably more 
than one-third. The Rev. Dr. Colt received 54 votes out of 123, or 
13 more than one-third. 



like many others, in and out of Maryland, deemed 
well suited for this critical time, or the equally 
respected Kector of St. Paul's (the Eev. Dr. Hodges), 
in the same city, for whom also I cast many votes. 
When it was thought advisable to go beyond our 
own borders, I used such little influence as I pos- 
sessed to make known to my brethren, at their 
request, the qualifications of an admirable and 
eminent presbyter of another Diocese, but at one 
time a resident of Maryland (the Kev. H. A. Coit, 
D. D., of New Hampshire). But when, on the 
memorable night of Wednesday, October 29th, after 
the 28th fruitless ballot, a Committee of Conference, 
consisting of six clergymen and six laymen (includ- 
ing among the latter two whom I have the pleasure 
of seeing now before me — one of these the honoured 
deputy from our own congregation,''' and the other f 
a man of judicial mind, who, though a deputy from 
another parish, we are happy to claim as belonging 
also in part to us), when, I say, these twelve gentle- 
men, who differed so much in opinion among 
themselves, made a unanimous report, and, with one 
voice, recommended to us the Kev. Wni. Paret, D. D., 
Eector of Epiphany Parish, Washington, I felt 
bound to yield my own previous judgment and 
accept the conclusion at which they, after much 
consideration, had arrived. 

And this I did at once, and after that never cast 
any ballot except for the presbyter who has now 

* Henry R. Hazlehurst, Esq. 

t Judge W. A. Stewart, of Baltimore, whose summer country- 
seat is in Howard County. 



6 



been elected. I felt, besides, that it was a great 
concession on the part of the friends of the estimable 
Eector of Emmanuel Church, Baltimore, who were 
on that committee; and if the twenty-three clergy- 
men who, even after this report, continued to vote 
for him, had been able to attain to a spirit of con- 
cession equal to that of Dr. Eccleston himself, and 
of his friends on the Committee of Conference, the 
contest, which was never anything but good-natured, 
would have been ended somewhat sooner. 

But all is well. The very delay, the gradual steps 
by which the Bishop-elect rose to his present emi- 
nence, make it all the plainer that he is the man — 
the honest choice of the large majority of both 
orders. He was not chosen by one of those 
unreasoning impulses which sometimes seize upon 
a Convention, carrying men off their feet and out of 
their heads, and making them transfer their votes 
wildly from one to another without exactly knowing 
why. It was quiet conviction that did the work, 
after sleeping on it a whole night. And here, as 
we Marylanders think, comes out the advantage of 
the celebrated and much-abused two-thirds rule. 
At the first ballot on Thursday morning. Dr. Paret's 
vote rose by a great leap from 57, the night before, 
to 77. In three ballots more he was elected Bishop 
by the clergy, and the choice was immediately and 
gladly confirmed by the laity. 

I have not, for years, attended in Maryland so 
good-tempered a Convention, especially when such 
burning questions had to be discussed, and so delicate 
a matter as an Episcopal election was to be accom- 



plished. Such a harmonious council could not have 
been held in this Diocese even three or four years 
ago. It indicates, therefore, a much happier, more 
Christian-like state of feeling. 

If you are at all acquainted with the current 
history of the Diocese, you know how sadly it has 
been disturbed since the memorable Convention held 
in Washington in 1874, when what is called 
" Ritualism " came up. You know, of course, the 
contest that has raged ever since about that unfor- 
tunate word (for the mention of the luord seems to 
excite^people more than the thing), and about Mount 
Calvary Church, for which few dared to say anything 
kind. You know how the dying embers of strife burst 
forth into a furious flame in 1879, the moment the 
aged Whittingham breathed his last ; how we have 
been tossing to and fro since his lifeless hand 
could no longer guide the rudder of our ecclesiasti- 
cal ship. Perhaps you are also aware that a goodly 
number of us — the Bishop-elect was one, your pre- 
sent rector was another — earnestly contended for 
the rights, under the law, of certain clergymen and 
candidates for Holy Orders, whose practices we did 
7iot like, and some of whose peculiar opinions we did 
not approve. But the Prayer Book is broad and com- 
prehensive — comprehensive, mark the word. If you 
know anything of the history of the book, you know 
that when it was put into nearly its present shape, some 
three hundred years ago, it was designed to include 
two different parties.* I may roughly describe them 

* A week after this sermon had been preached, the English mails 
"brought Mr. Gladstone's letter to the Bishop of St. Asaph on the 
Disestablishment of the Church of England. It is gi^atifying to 



as those who tended towards Puritanism, and those 
who tended towards Romanism, while Puritans and 
Romanists, as such, were excluded. Bishop Seabury 
and Bishop White, two churchmen of different type, 
also intended to include both these schools, when 
they drew up, in a spirit of compromise, our present 
American Prayer Book. At all events, these two 
schools have both been in our Church since it had 

be able to quote so weighty an authority in support of what I have 
said on the matter of comprehension. The following summary of 
Mr. Gladstone's remarks are from the London Siiectator of Oct. 
25, 1884 : 

"The Prime Minister has written a very interesting and wise 
letter to the Diocesan Conference at St. Asaph, of which he is a 
member, on "The Duty of Churchmen in Regard to Disestablish- 
ment,' coniining himself to the especial point that their duty is 
to take care "that discussions from within shall not bring the Estab- 
lishment to an end. Mr. Gladstone remarks that since the Refor- 
mation the Anglican Church has been almost the only one which 
has deliberately set itself to include both the parties which struggled 
together in the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation. 
The Anglican Church has deliberately set itself to include both 
parties j ust as Parliament includes both political parties ; whereas 
most other Churches have taken up the position of political clubs, 
all the members of which profess to be agreed in the same politi- 
cal creed. Of course, the result has been, and must have been, 
that there has been far more internal strife and discord in the 
Anglican Church than either in the Church of the Counter-Refor- 
mation (the Roman Catholic since the Council of Trent), or in the 
Puritan Churches which separated themselves from it, just as 
there is and must be more internal discord in Parliament than 
there can be in a political club. But, then, the very reason why 
more discord has been natural and almost necessary is also a 
reason why it should not be pushed to extremity. The Anglican 
Church was meant to include elements of difference^ just as other 
Churches were meant to exclude them ; and therefore the con- 
tending parties in it should jealously respect each other's rights and 
freedom, and not push their struggles to the internecine point. 
That was at once Mr. Gladstone's argument for comprehension 
and excuse for the strenuousness of past and present internal 
strife. He held that both parties have done great service to the 
Church, and that neither should try to push the other out." 



a beginning. Some extremists on either side seem 
. to wish to exclude all who do not agree with them- 
selves ; but I am one of those who not only submit to, 
but like and admire the broad comprehensiveness of 
the Prayer Book as it is. For thus maintaining what 
we believed to be the law of the Church, and doing 
justice to others, I have been called a " Eitualist," 
and the Bishop-elect has been complimented with 
the same epithet. He cared for this, I presume, just 
as much and just as little as I did and do ; for we 
are all answerable both to God and man for what we 
are^ and not for what we may be labeled and nick- 
named by prejudiced men. Yet, when one remem- 
bers his failings, shortcomings, sins, negligences 
and ignorances, the most natural thought is, " Enter 
not into judgment with Thy servant, Lord, for in 
Thy sight shall no man living be justified." 

But yet it was this — such was the strange and 
prejudiced state of feeling in this Diocese — that pre- 
vented the Kev. Dr. Paret, during all this troubled 
time, though he is one of our most prudent and 
wisest presbyters, from serving the Diocese on the 
Standing Committee ; and though he is by far the 
clearest debater in the House, and one of the best 
speakers in the whole Church, we were not allowed 
to send him as a deputy to the General Convention, 
where he would have been such an honour and orna- 
ment to our Diocese, and so useful to the Church at 
large. I am ashamed to record this, but, alas ! it 
was true.* 

* Dr. Paret was a deputy to the General Convention from Central 
Pennsylvania, and Dr. Hodges from New Jersey. Both of these 
presbyters lost their seats by accepting rectorships in the Diocese 
of Maryland, 



10 

And now what have we seen ? We have seen this 
very presbyter, who, though not perhaps the leader, ♦ 
was yet the mainstay in this necessary struggle for 
the rights of the clergy and of the laity, chosen by a 
large majority to be the Head, the Chief Pastor, 
the Bishop of this very Diocese — a majority that 
must have included many of those who, a few years 
ago, so completely misunderstood him. The new 
Bishop can be claimed by no party except the party 
of justice; and, now that the smoke of the battle has 
begun to clear away, every clergyman and every lay- 
man will, it is hoped, claim to belong to that very 
party ! 

I spoke just now of the rights of the laity ^ and it 
is a point I wish to emphasize. Your rights, my 
brethren, as churchmen were imperilled by the 
novel view of the law (now, thank God ! abandoned) 
that was taken by a majority of our Standing Com- 
mittee some four or five years ago. When this con- 
troversy first began, I remember that one of our 
very best laymen,* an old man, now gone to his rest, 
and one who hated strife, said, gently but firmly : 
'^ Every father of a family who has a son that may 
be destined for the Holy Ministry ought to resist 
this unaccountable tyranny of the Standing Com- 
mittee." For, my friends and brethren, just think 
what it meant. Not one of you could, with any 
confidence, have sent a son, however able and fit, 
into the ministry of our Church in this Diocese 
during that unhappy period. The hundreds of 
dollars spent on his education even at the author- 

*Mr. W. G. Harrison, of Baltimore. 



11 



ized theological seminaries of the Church would 
have been wasted. Your son would have been 
obliged, by law, to present testimonials as to his 
character signed by me, the rector, and by our 
vestry; and, on the new principles acted upon by 
our Standing Committee in 1879, 1881 and 1882, 
the testimonial might have been set aside, and your 
son left out in the cold (as the Kev. Mr. Martin was), 
because I, your rector, one of the signers, might 
possibly not have pronounced "satispactorilt" 
the Committee's shibboleth of churchmanship. Or 
they might have refused the testimonial of both 
rector and vestry on the ground that we have long 
had in this church, with the acquiescence of the 
rector, vestry and congregation, a beautiful memorial 
window with a prayer for the peace of the departed 
inscribed upon it; and this pious usage of the 
Church Catholic,"^ and irrepressible instinct of hu- 

* I add the following quotation from the now famous Prof. New- 
man Smjrth, of Andover, to indicate more clearly what I mean on 
a subject upon which no one should speak or write lightly. It is 
remarkable to meet, in this Protestant professor, a wider catho- 
licity than we find in some of our own Churchmen. Professor 
Smyth says : 

" The belief of the primitive Church respecting prayers for the 
dead has recently been collated and carefully examined by Canon 
Luckock in his book, After Death. ' The conclusion,' he writes, 
' from a full consideration of the foregoing argument is that the 
practice of praying for the faithful dead was universally adopted 
in primitive times ; and though, as we have seen, for wise reasons it 
was allowed to drop entirely out of our public worship, yet such a 
state of things cannot possibly be regarded as permanent' (p. 252). 
Referring to the mediaeval abuse of this primitive custom, which 
led to its abandonment in the Reformation, Canon Luckock says ; 
* We may well believe that in the temporary obscuration of the 
primitive practice and the almost complete withdrawal of what is 
confessedly a most consolatory doctrine, we can see a distinct sign 



12 



manity, is the very point of churchmanship with 
regard to which the Standing Committee stirred 
up such an unreasoning outcry a few years ago.* 
They might have refused, without giving any rea- 
sons at all, or without having any reasons to give. 
Therefore, I repeat, it was a struggle for the rights 
of the laity, no less than for those of the clergy; but 
it must be remembered that it was, on one side, 
an unavoidable contest for defence ; the attack came 
from others. " We laboured for peace, but when we 
spake unto them thereof, they made them ready to 
battle." 

This last Convention and this remarkable Episco- 
pal election imply a new era. It means that with 
our new Bishop we shall begin a renewed life, that 
Maryland will become her old self again, that we 
shall wipe out our past follies and contentions over 
trijaes, or at least not repeat them in the future. 
We shall not, we may hope, get into an excitement 
because one clergyman wears a chasuble and another 
refuses to lay aside his black gown. We shall not 
be afraid that priest-craft and the confessional are 

of a primitive purpose and a visitation upon this and preceding 
generations for other men's sins ' (p. 245). It is certainly a fair 
question whether in a deep consciousness of the oneness of Christ's 
kingdom in this world and the world to come we might not now 
safely avail ourselves in public worship, as well as in private devo- 
tion, of such expressions in regard to the dead as are to be found 
in the epitaphs in the Catacombs and in the ancient hturgies of 
the Church. So St. Paul expressed out of a full heart his wish that 
the Lord might grant toOnesiphorusio^/z<i mercy in that day.''— 2^ 
Tim. i. 18. The Orthodox Theology of To-Day, p. 188. 

* The allusion is, of course, to the unsuccessful attempt of a ma- 
jority of the Standing Committee of that date to prosecute the 
Rev. Messrs. Richey and Perry, which led to the painful and much 
to be regretted attack upon, our good Bishop Whittingham- 



13 

going to be imposed upon ns against our wills, be- 
cause, here and there, a few weak-minded persons 
delight to call opening their grief to their pastor by 
the name of "making their confession/^ And if this 
well-known permission and advice of the Prayer 
Book be abused (as no doubt it has been both in 
England and America), we shall leave such errors 
to be corrected by the proper authorities, by com- 
mon sense, and above all, by time; we shall not 
attempt to reform them by panic and mi,§appli- 
cation of the law. 

I have hailed with joy the indications of toleration 
and of peace. Our Standing Committee, in 1883, 
quietly received, as all other Dioceses would do,* 
testimonials of candidates signed by the very men 
whose papers they formerly rejected (without giv- 
ing reasons) as " unsatisfactory/' Every one of the 
candidates they rejected is now a faithful and 
accepted minister of the Church. The zeal, earnest- 
ness and self-sacrifice of the Mt. Calvary clergy, 
their faithful work among the poor, and among 
the neglected coloured people, and their patience 
under persecution, have won the day, as such qual- 
ities always will. They are generally respected and 
esteemed throughout the Diocese. So great, indeed, 
is the change of sentiment, that if there were any 
danger of these clergy leaving the Diocese, I should 
not be surprised to see a petition signed by the Stand- 
ing Committee itself— President and all — begging 
them to continue their labours among us ! Church- 
men in Maryland are at last beginning to realize the 

* With the possible, but not probable, exceptions of Virginia 
and West Virginia. 



14 

truth (to use the words of Bishop Walsham How) 
that "you cannot have one type of service and 
worship that will please and satisfy everybody.'^ 

Your hopes for the new era of which I speak 
would, I am sure, have been raised had you been 
present when, upon the announcement of the ap- 
proval by the laity of the. choice of the clergy, the 
whole House burst out with one accord into thanks- 
giving, singing : 

" Praise God from whom all blessings flow ! " 

And even more touching was the scene when the 
Bishop-elect was presented in person to the Conven- 
tion by the two presbyters, Eev. Dr. Eccleston and 
Eev. Dr. Hodges, who, along with him, had obtained 
so many suffrages for the sacred office. Received in 
dignified, graceful and generous terms by the Rev- 
erend President, the Rev. Dr. Leeds, who himself 
had so nearly been chosen, the Bishop-elect responded 
in words and tones and manner of lowly and most 
sincere self-abasement. That clear, ringing voice 
whose every accent usually penetrates to the re- 
motest corners of our largest buildings could, for 
once, scarce be heard even in the hushed and almost 
awful stillness, while, under deep emotion, which 
told the warm heart hidden beneath his honest, 
downright manner, he signified his acceptance of an 
office whose dignity and responsibility, as well as the 
circumstances of his election to it, evidently almost 
overwhelmed him. The few manly words that he 
could command himself to say were full of feeling 
and humility, and gave the happiest earnest for 
the success of the Episcopate that is to come. 



15 

** Strong in the Lord of Hosts, 
And in His mighty power ; 
Who in the strength of Jesus trusts 
Is more than conqueror." 

And now a last word of cordial welcome, dear 
brethren, for the Bishop whom God has given us, 
not because there is need for me so to speak to your 
already loyal hearts, but because the word is pleasant 
to me to say, and agreeable, I trust, for you to hear. 

I do not know how many of you are already per- 
sonally acquainted with the distinguished Eector of 
Epiphany Parish, Washington. If you do know 
him, you are aware how fully he deserves the high 
encomium, the warm welcome — rapidly growing into 
enthusiasm — with, which his name has been received. 
Under God's good Providence, the lot has fallen this 
time upon a strong man, a man of parts and power, 
a man who has shown himself to possess that rare 
quality of righteousness (which primarily means 
justice) — the ability to be just even to those with 
whom one may not agree. It is one of the rarest 
gifts. 

He is a man of ripe learning, of remarkable 
administrative ability in his great and growing 
parish, of cautious judgment, not too quick to take 
a stand, but when he has taken it, and knows him- 
self right, and feels that he has put on the armour 
of God, he stands immovable as a rock. I have 
seen him under ungenerous provocation ; I have 
known him grossly misrepresented, both in and out 
of the Convention ; and I am sure that he tries to 
follow the apostolic maxim: "Swift to hear, slow 



16 

to speak, slow to wrath''; for lie knows that the 
"wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of 
God/' 

One of the secular papers of Baltimore has said 
that Maryland's new Bishop will be second to few 
of his brethren in zeal, learning and activity. I be- 
lieve this to be perfectly true, and it might have 
been added with equal truth, second to none in re- 
ligious earnestness and conscientious devotion to the 
duties of the high and weighty office to which he 
has been called, under circumstances which seem 
clearly to indicate the Finger and Voice of the 
Master, saying, "Friend, go up higher." 

" We are sure that when he comes to us he will 
come in the fullness of the blessiijg of the Gospel of 
Christ." And we shall receive him as our Bishop, 
not only with loyal obedience, but with a joyful 
welcome. We shall listen to his lucid instruction 
from pulpit and chancel and Episcopal throne, by 
voice and by pen, with attentive respect, and with a 
sense of intellectual enjoyment as well as of spiritual 
profit. 

Let us, then, not fail to add our supplications, 
both in public and private, that the new Bishop for 
whom this widowed Diocese gives thanks to-day, 
may, in the magnificent and stirring language of 
this Sunday's Epistle,* be strong in the Lord and in 
the potuer of His might ; that he may put on the 
lohole armour of God ; that^ having done all, he may 
stand, in the future as in the past, girt about ivith 
truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness (or 

* The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity. 



17 

justice), and Ms feet shod with the preparation of the 
Gospel of peace ; that the only sword he wields may 
be the sioord of the Spiritiuhich is the Word of God ; 
that he may never lay aside the shield of faith where- 
with he may le able to quench those fiery darts from 
which even bishops are not exempt. Let us ask that 
utterance may ie given him that he may open his 
mouth ioldly to make hnoimi the mystery of the 
Gospel, for ivhich he is an ambassador, that therein he 
may speah boldly, as he ought to speah. 

And all this he will do, the Lord being his 
helper, to the utmost of his ability. 

It remains for us and all true churchmen of 
Maryland to support him earnestly and faithfully 
by will, by word and by deed. Amen ! 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 

019 566 671 i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 566 671 4 



